Sami v. BMW of North America, LLC.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: June 30, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00224
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMER SAMI; BAN SAMI, Case No. 23-cv-0224-BAS-JLB

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE 14 BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,

15 Defendant. (ECF No. 16)

17 Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to dismiss this action with 18 prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which 19 follows the parties’ entry into a settlement agreement. (Joint Mot., ECF No. 16.) The 20 parties additionally request the Court “to retain jurisdiction . . . in order to enforce the terms 21 of the Settlement Agreement should a dispute arise therefrom.” (Id. ¶ 3.) 22 The portion of the parties’ Joint Motion that seeks dismissal is unproblematic. The 23 parties have met the requirements of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which require “a stipulation of 24 dismissal by all parties who have appeared.” Thus, the Joint Motion is GRANTED to the 25 extent it seeks dismissal with prejudice of the instant action. 26 However, the parties request for the Court to retain continuing jurisdiction—as 27 opposed to directing the Clerk of Court to mark the case closed—so that it may aid in the 28 resolution of disagreements concerning the Settlement Agreement and enforce the terms 1 thereof requires further discussion. Retention of jurisdiction over a settlement agreement 2 || after a Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal is a matter of discretion.! See Collin v. Thompson, 8 F.3d 3 ||657, 659 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that “[a] federal court may refuse to exercise continuing 4 jurisdiction even though the parties have agreed to it” and that such declination 1s adjudged 5 || by the “abuse of discretion” standard). It is axiomatic that “[p]arties cannot by agreement 6 || confer jurisdiction upon a federal court,” Potter v. Norwest Mortg., Inc., 329 F.3d 608, 611 7 || (8th Cir. 2003), and therefore “it is irrelevant whether both parties wish for the federal court 8 || to retain indefinite jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement.” Brass Smith, LLC 9 || v. RPI Indus., Inc., 827 F. Supp. 2d 377, 380 (D.N.J. 2011). 10 The Court has every confidence that the parties can manage any near-term 11 obligations triggered by their private settlement agreement—an agreement that the Court 12 ||had no direct role facilitating and which the parties have not proffered to the Court— 13 || without the Court officially retaining jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court, in its discretion, 14 || declines to retain jurisdiction over future disputes related to the settlement agreement. 15 In summary, the Court ORDERS as follows: 16 1. The Court GRANTS the Joint Motion to dismiss the action with prejudice. 7 The action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 18 2. The Court, in its discretion, will not retain jurisdiction over the Settlement Agreement. 19 20 3. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close the case. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. / 22 DATED: JUNE 30, 2023 Cy wy UG (isha. 6 How. Cynthia Bashant 23 United States District Judge 24 ' The parties cite California Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 in support of their request for continuing jurisdiction. (Joint Mot. § 3.) Its applicability to proceedings in federal court under Erie 95 doctrine is dubious. See Thomas v. ooShirts, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-2519-TWP-MJD, 2022 WL 4367441, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 20, 2022) (“Section 664.6 is a California procedural rule that does not apply in federal 26 || court.”). But even if it did apply, it is a discretionary procedural mechanism that does not obligate a court to retain jurisdiction over a settlement agreement following the dismissal of claims that contract 1s meant 27 || to resolve. See Cal. Civ. Code § 664.6(a) (“If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction 8 the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.”) (emphasis added). □□